November 26, 2017

Yes, I know , the title sounds like a song from the 1970s. But, according to the California Supreme Court, it might have more to do with premises liability than a rock tune.

Earlier this month the California Supreme Court, issued an opinion that limits duty and liability in premises liability cases, and which may impact the way dealerships direct their traffic. In Vasilenko v. Grace Community Church, S235412, Nov. 13, 2017, Plaintiff was struck by a car as he crossed a public street, at night in the rain, between the main premises of a church and the church's overflow parking area. The Plaintiff alleged that the church owed him a duty of care to assist him in safely crossing the public street.

The Supreme Court held "that a landowner does not have a duty to assist invitees in crossing a public street when the landowner does no more than site and maintain a parking lot that requires invitees to cross the street to access the landowner's premises, so long as the street's dangers are not obscured or magnified by some condition of the landowner's premises or by some action taken by the landowner." (emphasis added).

The case was hotly contested, but in the end it appears that California's highest court was motivated in part by the lack of control the premises owner has over the public roadway. The Court stated that, "The power to control public streets and regulate traffic lies with the state which may delegate local authority to municipalities." Additionally, the Court held that a landowner may not "...erect signs on its property to direct the movement of traffic." The Court also appears to have been influenced by "the possibility that finding a duty in this case will cause some or perhaps many landowners to stop providing parking.... By providing parking, a landowner may decrease its invitees' risk of injury from other dangers of the road as compared to invitees finding their own parking on the streets."

So, before any premises owner, including a dealership, puts up a sign to direct traffic, this case is worth reading.